{"id":"alj-H300401-2026-03-04","awcc_number":"H300401","decision_date":"2026-03-04","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Tina Johnson","employer_name":"Conway Regional Health System","title":"JOHNSON VS. CONWAY REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM AWCC# H300401 March 04, 2026","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:3","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","back","wrist","rotator cuff","neck"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JOHNSON_TINA_H300401_20260304.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"JOHNSON_TINA_H300401_20260304.pdf","text_length":53895,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nWCC NO.: H300401 \n  \nTINA JOHNSON, EMPLOYEE                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nCONWAY REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT    \n                                        \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, INC.,  \nTPA                                                                                                                          RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 4, 2026 \n             \nHearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK, in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE LAURA BETH YORK, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE MELISSA WOOD, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n          STATEMENT OF THE CASE \nOn December 17, 2025, the above-captioned claim came on for a hearing in Little Rock, \nArkansas.  Previously, a pre-hearing telephone conference was held in this matter on October 8, \n2025.  A Pre-hearing Order was entered that same day pursuant to the telephone conference.  Said \norder was admitted into evidence along with the parties’ pre-hearing information filings without \nobjection by the parties as Commission’s Exhibit 1. \nStipulations \n During the pre-hearing telephone conference, and/or at the hearing, the parties proposed \nthe following stipulations: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within claim. \n \n2. The employee-employer-insurance carrier relationship existed among the parties on or \nabout September  6,  2022, when the Claimant  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  her \nright shoulder.  \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n2 \n \n \n3. On the date of the Claimant’s accidental injury, she earned an average weekly wage of \n$505.80 which entitles her to a weekly temporary total disability/TTD benefits rate of \n$337.00, and a permanent partial disability/PPD rate of $253.00 per week. \n 4.   The Claimant was assigned a 21% permanent impairment rating to the body as a whole \n       for her compensable right shoulder injury, which has been accepted and is being paid  \n       by the Respondents.  \n 6.   This claim for additional benefits has been controverted by the Respondents.   \n \n5.  All issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation              \n     Act.  \n \n  Issues \n \nBy agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated at the hearing were as follows: \n 1.   Whether the Claimant has permanently and totally disabled due to her admittedly  \n       compensable right shoulder injury of September 6, 2022, or in the alternative whether \n       the Claimant sustained wage-loss disability over and above her 21% impairment rating \n       as a result of her compensable shoulder injury. \n 2.   Whether the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee on any                                                  \n                  indemnity benefits awarded herein.  \n \nContentions \n \n The Claimant’s and the Respondents’ contentions are delineated below: \n \nClaimant:  \n \n The Claimant contends that on or about September 6, 2022, she was in the scope and course \nof her employment when she fell, landing on her right shoulder.  The Respondents accepted the \ninjury as compensable and began paying for treatment.  An MRI revealed a complete full thickness \ntear of the supraspinatus tendon and infraspinatus tendon.  Dr. O’Malley described the tear as \n“massive.” On January 10, 2023, Dr. O’Malley performed a right shoulder arthroscopy with rotator \ncuff  repair,  arthroscopic  bicep  tenodesis,  extensive debridement,  distal  clavicle  excision  and  a \nsubacromial excision and a subacromial excision.  On March 22, 2023, the Claimant was given a \nlifting restriction of one pound and one arm duty only.  On April 13, 2023, the Claimant’s employer \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n3 \n \nasked that she resign her employment so that she would be eligible for rehire as there was no work \nwithin  her  restrictions.  The Claimant  refused  to  resign  her employment  and was  therefore \nterminated on April 13, 2023.  Claimant continued to receive her TTD benefits.   \n On  September  6,  2023,  the  Claimant  underwent  a  Functional  Capacity  Evaluation/FCE \nwith 51 out of 51 consistency measures, returning her to the light duty category of work.  Claimant \nwas  still  in  pain  and  was  sent  to  Dr.  Charles  Pearce,  who  noted  that  she  was  not  at  MMI  and \nordered a reverse shoulder arthroplasty.  Respondents then sent the Claimant for another opinion \nwith Dr. Hussey, who opined that a shoulder arthroplasty was both reasonable and necessary.  On \nMarch 19, 2024, Dr. Hussey performed the surgery.  On October 15, 2024, Claimant underwent a \nsecond  Functional  Capacity  Evaluation  with  47  of  48  consistency  measures  and  returned  the \nClaimant to medium duty work.   On November 22, 2024, Dr. Hussey released the Claimant with \na 21% whole-as-a-whole rating and permanent restrictions.  \n Claimant is 61 years old with a high school education.  Her work history consists of mainly \nphysical labor jobs at hospitals.  Claimant contends that she is permanently and totally disabled or \nin the alternative that she has wage loss and that her attorney is entitled to an attorney fee.  \n All other issues are reserved. \nRespondents: \n The  Respondents contend  that  all  appropriate  benefits  are  being  paid  with  regard to  the \nClaimant’s compensable shoulder injury.  \n                FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nAfter  reviewing  the record  as  a  whole, including  the  medical  reports, the documentary \nevidence, and other matters properly before the Commission, and after having had an opportunity \nto listen to the testimony of both witnesses and after having been given the opportunity to observe \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n4 \n \ntheir demeanor, I hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance \nwith Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1.     The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2.     The proposed stipulations set forth above are reasonable and hereby accepted. \n \n          3.         The Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that her  \n           compensable right shoulder injury of September 6, 2022, rendered her permanently \n           and totally disabled from earning meaningful wages in the same and/or other    \n           employment.  However, the Claimant proved her entitlement to wage loss disability \n           in the amount of 15% over and above her 21% permanent anatomical impairment  \n           rating.   \n \n          4.         All issues not litigated herein or addressed in this Opinion are reserved under the                       \n           Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act.    \n \nSummary of Evidence \nThe witnesses were the Claimant, Ms. Tina Johnson, and Ms. Cecilia Brunson. \n            The record consists of the hearing transcript of December 17, 2025, and the exhibits held \ntherein.  In addition to the Pre-hearing Order discussed above, the exhibits admitted into evidence \nin this case include Claimant’s Exhibit 1consisting of a Medical Index comprising seven numbered \npages  along  with  126  numbered pages of medical records; Claimant’s Exhibit 2 encompasses a \nNon-Medical Exhibit comprising   of five   numbered pages;  Respondents’  Exhibit  1  is  a \nRespondents’ Hearing Exhibit Index Medicals consisting of three pages; and Respondents’ Exhibit \n2 encompassing six number pages of Non-Medical documentary records.  \nTestimony \n Ms. Tina Johnson,  now age 62, graduated  from  high  school  in  1981.   The Claimant \nconfirmed that she attended Petit Jean Mountain Vocational School for one year.  According to \nthe Claimant, she also attended one year of technical training school in Russellville, Arkansas, but \nshe did not complete the program.  The Claimant stated that she later attended a program at Eastern \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n5 \n \nCollege,  in  Little  Rock  and obtained certification as  a  medical assistant approximately  twenty \nyears  ago.  However, the Claimant  testified that  she no  longer  holds the medical  assistant \ncertification. \n About her employment history, after leaving high school, the Claimant went to work for \nKimberly  Clark  and  worked  there for  thirteen  years.   While at Kimberly  Clark,  the  Claimant’s \nemployment duties included work as a machine operator and backup line leader on an assembly \nline.  She left her employment with Kimberly Clark after her twins were born prematurely.  The \nClaimant  stayed  at  home to  care  for her children for  about  seven  years.    She returned to  the \nworkforce and began working at AmTran as a spot welder.  The Claimant worked there for over a \nyear and then went to work for Frigidaire.  There, she worked on the assembly line for over a year.  \n The Claimant confirmed that then, she moved to Tulsa, Oklahoma, and began working as \na mental health technician.  Her employment duties consisted of caring for patients to protect them \nfrom harming themselves and others.  The Claimant was also responsible for providing basic care \nfor  the patients, which involved direct patient care related to  maintaining their emotional  well-\nbeing.    Specifically,  her primary duties  included assisting patients with their activities  of daily \nliving, such  as  personal  hygiene, mobility, checking their vitals, and making  sure  they  were \nproperly nourished and dressed.  She worked in that position for about seven years.  \n The  Claimant  moved  to  Dallas,  Texas, and  obtained  employment  at  Medical  City.    She \nworked  as  a  patient  representative  admitting  patients  into  the  hospital.    The  Claimant  left  that \nposition and went to work at Green Oaks Hospital.  She testified that she worked at Green Oaks \nas a  mental  health  technician,  performing identical employment duties  that  she had  done  at the \nTulsa Center for Behavioral Health.  The Claimant worked there for twelve years.  She left that \nposition after she got married and moved back to Conway.  Around 2018, the Claimant obtained \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n6 \n \nemployment at Conway Regional, as a mental health technician.  She performed similar duties that \nshe had at Tulsa Behavioral Health Center and Green Oaks Hospital.  As a mental health patient \ntechnician, the Claimant’s primary daily focus was on direct patient care, which included helping \nthem with their artwork, grooming, and monitoring their physical and emotional well-being.  The \nClaimant testified that she had a requirement that she be able to lift 50 pounds. \n With  respect  to  the  Claimant  prior  medical  conditions,  she  testified  that  she  had  pre-\nexisting problems in her lower back that included spinal stenosis, at L5; A-fib; lymphedema; high \nblood pressure; and cholesterol problems.  The Claimant admitted that she sustained a foot injury \nin a motor vehicle accident several years ago.  However, the Claimant denied having surgery on \nher foot.  The Claimant confirmed that she takes pain medications prescribed for her back, which \ninclude Tramadol and Hydrocodone.  However, the Claimant denied that her back condition ever \nprevented her from working.  She further denied that while working at Conway Regional, her back \ncondition caused her to have difficulty performing her job duties prior to the date of her injury. \n The Claimant described what happened to her on September 6, 2022: \nA.  I walked down to the cafeteria to get some breakfast, and I got my breakfast and \nI was walkin’ out of the door, comin’ through the door, and I fell. \n \nQ.  Okay.  You tripped and fell and injured that right shoulder; is that correct? \n \nA.  Correct.   \n \nQ.  Are you right-handed? \n \nA.  I am. \n \n           She confirmed that she underwent an MRI of her right shoulder, which revealed a massive  \nsupraspinatus and infraspinatus tear, and a bicep tear.  This MRI was done on October 14, 2022.  \nThe Claimant confirmed that she treated Dr. O’Malley.  He performed surgery on the Claimant’s \nright shoulder on January 10, 2023.  The Claimant denied that the surgery provided any relief of \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n7 \n \nher symptoms.  Instead, the Claimant testified that the surgery made her symptoms worse.  As a \nresult, another MRI was obtained of her right shoulder, which showed she had tearing again.  The \nClaimant was sent for her first functional capacity evaluation/FCE, which revealed reliable results.   \nIt  was performed  on September  6, 2023, and  the Claimant  performed  51 out of  51  consistency \nmeasures  and  was  returned  to  the  light  category  of  work.    Following  the  FCE,  the  Claimant \nunderwent an IME with Dr. Charles Pearce.  He opined that the Claimant was at maximum medical \nimprovement, and he wanted to refer her to another doctor for a reverse shoulder arthroplasty.  At \nthat point, the Claimant underwent evaluation by Dr. Hussey.  He performed a total right reverse \nshoulder  surgery  in  March  2024.    The  Claimant  confirmed  that  the second surgery  helped  to \nimprove her right shoulder condition.  She underwent a second FCE and it showed that she again \nput forth a reliable effort with a 47 out of 48 consistency measures.  At that point, the Claimant was \nreturned to work in the medium classification of work.    \n  On  November  22,  2024,  Dr.  Hussey  released  the  Claimant  to  be  at  maximum  medical \nimprovement  and  assigned  her  a  21%  whole  body  impairment  for  her  shoulder  injury.   The \nClaimant confirmed that the impairment rating is still being paid to her by the Respondents.  She \nconfirmed that she recently followed up with Dr. Hussey, and no additional medical treatment was \nrecommended at that time.  The Claimant confirmed that they ended up letting her go at her job at \nConway  Regional.  She  agreed  that  she  applied  for  FMLA  leave  and  once  that  ran  out,  they \nterminated her.  The Claimant testified that she was terminated from Conway Regional by Holly, \nin Human Resource.  She testified that she went into the office and talked to Holly, and she told her \nthat they no longer had any more work for her.  However, Holly told her if anything came up, she \ncould apply, and she did so.  The Claimant testified that she was told if there was a job she was \nqualified to do, they would call her.  According to the Claimant, this occurred prior to her second \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n8 \n \nsurgery.  The Claimant confirmed that after the second surgery, her doctor released her to medium \nduty work.  She testified that she applied for medical assistant work and  a patient representative \nposition at  Conway  Regional.    The  Claimant  denied  that  they  ever  called  her  back  about  any  of \nthose jobs.  Per the Claimant, previously, she received an email from them on one of the jobs saying \nshe was not qualified for the position.  \n  The  Claimant  denied  having  performed  any  work elsewhere since  her  termination from \nConway Regional.  She further denied having applied for Social Security Disability benefits.  The \nClaimant verified that she agreed to do vocational rehabilitation.  However, the Claimant denied \nthat  she  was ever offered  vocational  rehabilitation with  Ms.  Cecelia  Brunson.   According  to  the \nClaimant, she has never met Ms. Brunson or talked to her on the phone.  The Claimant admitted \nthat she is familiar with the vocational report submitted into evidence with a list of potential jobs.  \nSaid vocational report was signed by Ms. Brunson on June 2, 2025.  The Claimant confirmed that \nshe applied for majority of the jobs in the report.  However, the Claimant testified that some of the \njobs that she applied for in the report were not available.  She testified that she found this out after \nshe had applied for them.   \n  Ms.  Brunson  provided  the  Claimant  with  a  report  on  December  6, [2025] which  also \nidentified some jobs.  She testified that she applied for most of the jobs listed in that report.  The \nClaimant  confirmed  that  she  provided  her  attorney  with  three  pages  of  jobs for  which  she  had \napplied.   Specifically,  the  Claimant  testified  that  she applied  for  a  front  desk  receptionist  job  at \nReach Therapy Services.  She also applied at Pulaski County for an Enforcement Clerk II position, \nand  for  an  office  assistant position at  Arkansas  Lymphedema Therapy.   Per  the  Claimant, she \napplied for another  position  as  a patient  service  representative at RelateCare  in  Sherwood.  \nAccording  to  the Claimant,  she called  two  of  the  places on  the  list  because  they  did  not  have  a \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n9 \n \nwebsite  or  anything showing where  to  send  the application,  but  she  was unable  to contact them.  \nThe Claimant affirmed she has received no employment offers from any of her job search efforts.  \nAccording to the Claimant, she believes that she could do a receptionist job if she is trained to do \nthe position. \n  Although the Claimant is 62 years old, she does not want to retire.  Instead, she wants to \ncontinue working.  The Claimant explained how her injury has changed her life: \n A.  A lot.  I don’t do a lot of things that I used to do.  When I first had my first \n surgery, I couldn’t do anything had it not been for my husband.  He had to do \n everything for me.  I couldn’t’ even raise this arm [indicating] up.  This is as far as \n it would go. \n \n Q.  You’re talking about your right arm.   \n \n A.  My right arm, mm-hmm. \n \n Q.  And you’re moving it maybe 15 degrees away from your body. \n \n A.  Right.  It – it wouldn’t – and I did that for about a year or ‘til the next surgery, \n and then when Dr. Hussey did it, I was able to raise [sic] up,  but I still have, like, \n pain in it.  But if it had not been for him – \n \n Q.  Your husband? \n \n A.  Mm-hmm. \n \n Q.  Is that a yes? \n \n A.  And my family and my daughters, I couldn’t did anything. \n \n Q.  Following the surgery with Dr. Hussey, has it gotten better? \n \n A.  It is better, thank God.    \n \n   The Claimant testified that sometimes when she is mopping or sweeping the pain is not as \nbad  as  other  days.   According  to  the Claimant, she  does  some  volunteer  work  at  her  church.  \nHowever, she is  not  paid for  this  work.    According  to  the  Claimant,  she  has  not  done any \nvolunteering in almost a month and a half.  They distribute clothes to the homeless or people in \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n10 \n \nneed of clothes.  They also pass out food to the needy.  She admitted that she has been doing this \nwork since the accident.  The Claimant testified that when she does volunteer work for a day, it \ndepends on the day, but sometimes she is in pain around her shoulder area, and at other times she \nis not in pain.  She does not take pain medicine.  Instead, the Claimant takes Tylenol.   \n   On a daily basis, the Clamant testified that she visits her mother in Conway.  She can cook, \nbut her husband does most of the cooking.  The Claimant is right-handed.  She testified that she \ncannot reach  up  with  her  right  hand  and  do  her  hair  the  way  she  likes  to  do  it.    The  Claimant \ntestified that she has learned to use her left hand and compensate with it.  She agreed that she has \nbeen using her left hand more often than her right hand to get things done. \n   Under   cross-examination,   the Claimant confirmed   that   the   Respondents   took   her \ndeposition on March 19, 2025.  She confirmed that during her deposition they covered all the jobs \nexcept  for  maybe  the  one  at  Medical  City,  where  she  worked  in  admissions.   The  Claimant \nexplained that in that position, when people came to be admitted to the hospital, she would register \nthem in and interact with patients and get them where they needed to be. \n   She admitted that she has prior lower back problems, for which she has treated with Dr. \nKent.  The Claimant confirmed that she has been on Tramadol for years.  She admitted that prior \nto her deposition, Dr. Kent put her on Hydrocodone.  The Claimant confirmed that she takes both \nmedications.   \n   Her employment at Conway Regional was that of a patient care technician.  That particular \nunit of the hospital has a capacity of up to twelve patients.  Her job duties included checking vitals, \ndoing group activities, and sometimes helping the patients with getting dressed.  She worked from \n7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.  The Claimant confirmed that she worked three days in a row and then \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n11 \n \nshe was off four days.  She admitted that the surgery with Dr. Hussey helped quite a bit, and she \ncould now raise her arm again. \n        The  Claimant  testified  during  her  deposition  that  she stated  she did  not  apply  for  the \nreceptionist  position  she had found out  about three  weeks  before.  However,  the  Claimant \nexplained that she did apply for a receptionist position on the day shift.  She confirmed she was \nreleased the first time from Dr. Hussey’s care on November 22, 2024.  From that date until her  \ndeposition was taken, the Claimant admitted that she testified that she had not applied anywhere \nsince  leaving  Conway  Regional.  The  Claimant acknowledged  that  she does  not  take any \nprescription pain medications for her shoulder.   She confirmed that if she decides to file for early \nretirement Social Security Disability benefits, she will list her shoulder and back as  reasons for \nneeding these benefits.  The Claimant confirmed that her husband is retired and she hangs out with \nhim during the day.   She also has two children in the Conway area.  The Claimant admitted that \nshe continues to do sisterhood with her church.  They have women’s day programs and things of \nthat nature.  She admitted that she testified during her deposition testimony that she had taken a \ntrip with her husband to Floridia around Christmas time and they stayed for three weeks to a month.  \nThey also traveled to Memphis for a week and a half.  At the time of her deposition testimony, the \nClaimant agreed that she had started going back to the gym.  She admitted that she stated during \nher deposition that she had not gone to the gym for two weeks because of her back.  The Claimant \nagreed that she also testified that her arm did not keep her from doing anything around the house \nbecause she knows her limits.  She confirmed that she recently applied for quite a few jobs.  The \nClaimant admitted that if she gets an offer from someone to go back to work, she will return to \nwork. \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n12 \n \nOn redirect examination, the Claimant admitted that her deposition was taken on March \n19,  2025.    She  verified  that  she  applied  for  jobs  at  Conway  Regional  before  the  vocational \nrehabilitation  report  came  out.  However,  the  Claimant  was  not  offered  any  of  those  jobs.    The \nClaimant believes that she was qualified for those jobs if training is provided.  She specifically \nagreed that one of the jobs was a nighttime receptionist job, and she fits the qualifications for that \nposition.   According  to  the  Claimant,  the  heaviest  thing  that  she  can  lift  at  the  gym is  ten (10) \npounds.  The Claimant denied having been to the gym recently.   \n Cecilia Brunson     \n The  Respondents  called  Ms.  Brunson  as  a  witness.    She  is  a  Vocational  Consultant.  \nAccording to Ms. Brunson, she reviews medical records and sometimes interviews Claimants to \nestablish  her  opinion  and  put  it  in  a  report.    She  gave  an  overview  of  her  qualifications.  Ms. \nBrunson holds a master’s degree in Rehabilitation Counseling.  She has worked as a Vocational \nConsultant  since 2018  and done  job  placement  since  2013.   Ms.  Brunson  has  owned  her  own \ncompany since 2018.   \n She confirmed that she reviewed some of the Claimant’s records.  Ms. Brunson confirmed \nthat she documented in her June 2, 2025, report what all she reviewed.  These documents included \nthe Claimant’s deposition and the functional capacity evaluation.  According to Ms. Brunson, she \ndocuments the Claimant’s restrictions, work history, and educational history.  She confirmed that \nshe  identified  some  job  openings  from  Indeed,  Conway  Regional  and  UAMS  websites.    Ms. \nBrunson agreed that the jobs identified in her report fit within the Claimant’s physical restrictions.   \n She confirmed that all of the jobs reflect that the Claimant could make the same or more money \nthan what she was making at the time of her injury. \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n13 \n \n  According to Ms. Brunson, the main factors or skills that the Claimant possess that should \nlead  to  her  return  to  work  including  working  in  the  medical  profession,  ability  to  deal  with  the \npublic, negotiating and persuasion skills with the patients, which are some of those skills that are \nvery important in the healthcare field.  Ms. Brunson opined that the Claimant’s shoulder injury \nshould not keep her from working, or a barrier to keep her from getting a job. \n On cross-examination, Ms. Brunson admitted that she did not interview the Claimant.  She \nstated that she did not interview the Claimant because the insurance company did not ask her to \ninterview her.   \n Ms. Brunson explained: \nQ. And did they ask you to provide assistance with helping her find these jobs \nor apply for these jobs? \n \nA. If she wanted assistance. \n \nQ. Okay.  Was this conveyed to her by you at any point? \n \nA. No. \n \n*** \n \nQ.  Do you have a medical background? \n \nA. No.   \n       \nMedical Evidence \n A  review  of  the  medical  records  shows  that  the Claimant  sought  medical  treatment on \nSeptember 27, 2022, from Dr. Gil Johnson at the College Family Park Clinic.  At that time, the \nClaimant reported a history of an injury that happened on September 6, 2022, when she fell while \nwalking out of the cafeteria.  She reported the following complaints: “1.  Right shoulder pain has \npersisted since the injury.  2. Left hand and thumb pain that has improved.”   Dr. Johnson noted \nthat physical examination of the Claimant’s right shoulder was suggestive of a suspected rotator \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n14 \n \ncuff injury and contusion to the left hand, wrist, and thumb.  He ordered x-rays of the Claimant’s \nright shoulder and also of her left hand, wrist, and thumb.  Dr. Johnson placed the Claimant on \nlight duty restrictions of no heavy lifting over 20 pounds until he had had a chance to re-evaluate \nher. \n X-rays performed of the Claimant’s right shoulder on September 27, 2022, showed “No \ndislocation.    There   was   moderate   osteoarthritis   of   both   the   acromioclavicular   joint   and \nglenohumeral joint.”   \n On  October  14, 2022, an  MRI  performed  on  the  Claimant’s  right  shoulder  with  an \nimpression of: \n 1. Complete full-thickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon. \n 2. Full-thickness tear of the anterior half of the infraspinatus tendon. \n 3. Moderate grade partial thickness tear of the subscapularis tendon. \n 4.  Medial  subluxation  of  the  long  head  of  the biceps tendon  from  the  bicipital \n groove. \n 5. Degenerative tears of the superior, posterior, and inferior labrum. \n 6.  Moderate  degenerative  arthrosis  of  the  glenohumeral  joint  effusion  with \n synovitis. \n 7. Large glenohumeral joint effusion with synovitis. \n 8. Moderate degenerative arthrosis of the acromioclavicular joint. \n 9.  Probable  23  mm  enchondroma  in  the  lateral  humeral  head.    Radiographic \n correlation recommended.     \n Dr. Johnson saw the Claimant on October 24, 2022, for a follow-up for results of the MRI.  \nHe  opined  that  the  results  revealed  the  following:  “Complete  full  thickness  tear  of  the \nsupraspinatus tendon.  Full thickness tear of the anterior half of the infraspinatus tendon.  Medial \nsubluxation of the long head of the biceps tendon from the bicipital groove.  Degenerative changes \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n15 \n \nwere noted.”  At that time, the Claimant continued in significant pain.  Dr. Johnson referred the \nClaimant to an orthopedist and continued her current medications and work restrictions.   \n On November 7, 2022, the Claimant was evaluated by Dr. James T. Howell due to shoulder \npain and related symptoms.  Dr. Howell assessed the Claimant with “Right shoulder rotator cuff \ntear,  right  shoulder  mass,  likely  enchondroma,  and  right  shoulder  glenohumeral  OA,  for  which   \nrecommended “right shoulder scope.”    \n Dr. Lawerance O’Malley evaluated the Claimant’s right shoulder on December 9, 2022.  \nHe had a long discussion with the Claimant regarding her diagnosis and treatment options.  They \ndiscussed  that  the  Claimant  would  likely  benefit  from  surgery.  From  a  work  standpoint,  Dr. \nO’Malley continued her on a five-pound lifting restrictions with her right arm. \n On January 10, 2023, Dr. O’Malley authored an Operative Note: \n PREOPERATIVE DIAGNOSES: \n1. Right shoulder massive supraspinatus and infraspinatus rotator cuff tear. \n2. Biceps tearing. \n3. Subacromial impingement. \n4. Distal clavicle arthritis. \n5. Labral tearing.   \n POSTOPERATIVE DIAGNOSES: \n1. Right shoulder massive supraspinatus and infraspinatus rotator cuff tear. \n2. Biceps tearing. \n3. Subacromial impingement. \n4. Distal clavicle arthritis. \n5. Labral tearing.   \nPROCEDURES PERFORMED: \n1. Right shoulder arthroscopy with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n16 \n \n2. Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis. \n3. Extensive debridement intraarticularly and also subacromial space. \n4. Distal clavicle excision. \n  5. Subacromial decompression. \n Dr. O’Malley saw the Claimant in follow-up clinic on January 27, 2023, due to her right  \nshoulder arthroscopy with massive rotator cuff repair, biceps tenodesis distal clavicle resection, \nsubacromial  decompression, and  extensive  debridement.  Overall,  the  Claimant  was  doing  well \nwith her pain being controlled.  Dr. O’Malley placed the Claimant on one-hand duty using only \nthe left arm and started her physical therapy at that time.      \n On  February  22,  2023,  the  Claimant presented  to Sarah  Barlow,  PA, at  Baptist  Health \nMedical Center in Little Rock, for follow-up clinic for her right shoulder surgery.  At that time, \nthe Claimant reported that she was doing “okay.” Her pain was improving and she had no \ncomplaints  or  concerns.   Barlow  noted  that  on  orthro  examination  the  focus  was  of  the  right \nshoulder.   Specifically, Barlow opined that the Claimant’s incisions were observed to be well \nhealed.  Barlow further opined that the Claimant was resting comfortably in her arm sling, and her \nright upper extremity was neurovascularly intact.      \n IMPRESSION: 6 [sic] weeks out right shoulder arthroscopy with massive rotator \n cuff repair, biceps tenodesis, distal clavicle resection, subacromial decompression \n and extensive debridement. \n PLAN: Overall  I think the patient is doing well.  We will get her prescription to \n start formal physical therapy today.  We will see her back in 1 month for follow-up \n evaluation.  From a work standpoint we will keep her on 1 arm duty using only the \n left arm.    We  will  see  her  back  in  4  weeks  for  follow-up  evaluation.    All  of  her \n questions were answered today she understands and agrees with this plan. \nThe Claimant was seen again on March 22, 2023, in follow-up clinic with Barlow for her \none-month  in  clinic evaluation due  to  her  right  shoulder  surgery.    At  that  time,  the  Claimant \nreported that her pain was improving and she had no complaints or concerns.  The Claimant stated \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n17 \n \nthat she was happy with the progress she was making.  In a separate letter dated March 22, Dr. \nO’Malley wrote to Whom It May Concern:  It is my medical opinion that Tina Johnson needs to \nremain on a l lb. lifting restriction below shoulder until further evaluation...”   \nOn April 28, 2023, the Claimant presented to Dr. O’Malley for follow-up evaluation of her \nright shoulder.  The Claimant stated that she was doing physical therapy at McMasters.  However, \nthe Claimant reported that she did not believe she was making good progress.  She still complained \nof a lot of pain.  Dr. O’Malley opined that the Claimant seemed to be pseudo paralytic.  He stated \nthat a lot of her decrease in motion was secondary to pain.  Specifically, Dr. O’Malley opined, “As \nher deltoid strength improves, I do believe the patient’s motion will get better.”  He continued her \nphysical restrictions.       \nDr. Jared Bishop, at Baptist Health Medical Center in Conway, evaluated the Claimant on \nMay 28, 2023, due to right shoulder injury.  He stated in progress notes that the Claimant was not \nmaking much progress at that point.  She still had significant pain.  Dr. Bishop stated that he would \nlike to get a repeat MRI of the Claimant’s right shoulder to evaluate the status of her surgical \nrepair. \nOn  May  31, 2023, the  Claimant  saw  Physician  Assistant, Barlow, due  to  right  shoulder \npain, with unspecified chronicity.  The Claimant presented to discuss the results of the MRI done \nsince her last visit.  Barlow opined that her MRI findings really were not that impressive.  As a \nresult, she continued the Claimant’s physical therpay.  The Claimant chose to undergo subacromial \ninjection.    Her  one-arm  duty  was  continued,  and  she  was  scheduled  for  a  follow-up  visit  in  six \nweeks.  The Claimant tolerated the procedure well with no immediate complications.   \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n18 \n \n An MRI of the Claimant’ right shoulder was done W/O contrast on May 31, 2023, with an \nimpression of: \n 1. Severely limited evaluation of the rotator cuff due to the severe motion   \n  degradation.  This can be evaluated with repeat to MRI or potentially CT   \n  arthrography if needed. \n 2. Severe attenuation of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons at the footplate \n  with a probable full-thickness defect between the posterior supraspinatus and  \n  anterior margin of the infraspinatus tendons proximal to the critical zone.  Severe  \n  muscular volume is present. \n 3. Articular sided tearing and attenuation of the superior subscapularis tendon  \n  without full-thickness tear. \n 4. Probable biceps tenodesis. \n 5. Severe glenohumeral osteoarthritis with circumferential labral    \n  degeneration/tearing. \n 6. Remodeling of the humeral head and glenoid with retroversion of the glenoid. \n 7. Large effusion and subacromial/subdeltoid bursal distention containing debris. \n 8. Acromioclavicular joint arthritis and probable debridement or resorption of the  \n  distal clavicle with os acromial. \n     9. 2.4 similar cartilage lesion at the humeral head similar.  \nDr. O’Malley saw the Claimant in a follow-up clinic on August 25, 2023, due to her right \nshoulder  complaints.    At  that  time, the  Claimant was  struggling  with  active  motion  of  her right \nshoulder.  Overall, the Claimant continued to work hard with physical therapy.  She continued to \nstruggle with active motion but passively her range of motion was improving in her shoulder.  Dr. \nO’Malley continued the Claimant’s one-arm duty and ordered a functional capacity evaluation to \nassess the Claimant’s progress.  \nThe Claimant underwent an FCE on September 6, 2023, at the Functional Testing Centers \nin Mountain Home.  The results of this evaluation showed that a reliable effort was put forth during \nthis evaluation, with 51 of 51 consistency measures within expected limits.  Analysis of the data \ncollected  during  this  evaluation showed that  the  Claimant  did  put  forth a consistent  effort  and \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n19 \n \npassed all criteria for a reliable effort indicating that a significant degree of effort was put forth.  \nPer these results of this evaluation, the Claimant demonstrated the ability to perform the LIGHT \nduty classification of work.  \nDr. Charles Pearce saw the Claimant for an office visit on October 10, 2023, to evaluate \nher continued right shoulder pain and weakness.  His impression was “Right shoulder rotator cuff \narthropathy.  I suspect this is at least a grade IV or an IV B.  Dr. Pearce opined that the Claimant \nwas not at maximum medical improvement.  He also opined that the Claimant could perform light \ncategory work only, which is a permanent restriction.  Dr. Pearce specifically stated that the only \nway to address her pain and dysfunction would be with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty.  He went \non to state that this was the only surgical option. \nDr. Micheal Hussey evaluated the Claimant for her right shoulder complaints on November \n13, 2023.  He recommended that the Claimant undergo a total right reverse shoulder replacement.  \nDr. Hussey noted that the Claimant had pre-existing glenohumeral arthrosis based on the MRI scan \nin 2022 which predated her work injury.  However, Dr. Hussey stated that the Claimant did not \ncomplain  of  any  symptoms  and  had  never  sought  orthopedic  care  of  her  shoulder  prior  to  her \ninjury.  He also stated that the Claimant did have significant rotator cuff damage after her injury \nand due to the retear this led to worsening instability arthropathy of the shoulder joint.  Dr. Hussey \nstated: “It is my medical opinion that the majority of the Claimant’s continued pathology and \nproblem seen on exam and imaging are more than 51% related to her work injury.”  Restrictions \ninclude those recommended on the FCE for light duty.  He also stated that the Claimant would be \nat MMI around six months postoperatively.   \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n20 \n \nOn March 19, 2024, Dr. Hussey performed the surgical procedure on the Claimant’s right \nshoulder:  “1.    Right   reverse   total   shoulder   arthroplasty.    2.   Right   shoulder   removal   of \nnonabsorbable deep implant material.” \nThe   Claimant   underwent   follow-up   care   under   for   her   right   shoulder   condition \npostoperatively under the care of Dr. Hussey. \nOn October 15, 2024, the Claimant underwent a second FCE.  The results of this evaluation \nindicate that a reliable effort was put forth, with 47 of 48 consistency measures within expected \nlimits.   Analysis data collected during the evaluation show that the Claimant put forth a consistent \neffort and passed all criteria for a reliable effort indicating that a significant degree of effort was \nput forth.  The Claimant showed the ability to perform MEDIUM classification of work per the \nU.S. Department  of  Labor guidelines  as  a  frequency level  when  taking  into  account  a  normal \nworkday.                  \nDr. Hussey saw the Claimant for a follow-up visit on November 22, 2024.  He opined that \nthe  Claimant  could  return  to  work  at  the  medium  classification  of  work  with  the  restrictions \ndescribed in the FCE performed on October 15.  He stated that if the Claimant returned to work in \nher earlier job, accommodation would need to be made to prevent her from using the right upper \nextremity beyond the stated restrictions in the report of the FCE.  Dr. Hussey placed the Claimant \nat  MMI  as  of  November  22  with  a  35%  impairment  rating  to  the  right  upper  extremity,  which \ncorresponds to a 21% whole person impairment rating according to the 4\nth\n Edition of the AMA \nGuides  to  the  Evaluation  of  Permanent  Impairment.    According  to  this clinic note,  Dr.  Hussey \nstated that the impairment was calculated based off of range of motion deficit of the shoulder joint, \nas well as impairment given for the shoulder total joint arthroplasty noted on Table 27 of page 61.  \nUsing  the  combined  values  chart  on  page  322,  this conferred  to a  35%  impairment  to  the right \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n21 \n \nupper extremity.  He stated no further follow-up was necessary.  Dr. Hussey specifically stated, \n“All statements given above are within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.”    \nOn October 15, 2025, the Claimant saw Dr. Hussey for an office visit regarding her right \nshoulder.    At  that  time,  the  Claimant  stated  she  was  pleased  overall  with  the  outcome  of  her \nshoulder  surgery.    She  reported  that  her  shoulder  was  doing  relatively  well  and  she  was  still \npleased with the results overall.  However, the Claimant stated that she was having some unusual \ncomplaints of numbness tingling from her upper shoulder radiating down her shoulder, arm, and \nhand.  X-rays  of  the  Claimant’s  right  shoulder  demonstrated  well  aligned  reverse  shoulder \nreplacement without sign of loosening or failure.  Normal AC alignment.  Dr. Hussey opined that \nthe paresthesias from her upper shoulder and neck down the arm were most likely from possibly \ncoming from her neck or neurologic derangement.  He specifically stated “I do not think this is \ncoming from her shoulder.  She is still at MMI, and no further follow-up is necessary.”    \n                                      Adjudication \nA.  Permanent and Total Disability Benefits \n The Claimant asserts that she has been made permanently and totally disabled because of \nher compensable right shoulder injury of September 6, 2022.  \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-519(e)(1) (Repl. 2002) provides: \"Permanent total disability\" means \nan inability, because of compensable injury or occupational disease, to earn any meaningful wages \nin the same or other employment.  Furthermore, the statute provides that the burden of proof shall \nbe on the injured employee to prove their inability to earn any meaningful wages in the same or \nother employment.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-519(e)(2) (Repl. 2002).  \n The burden of proving permanent total disability is on the Claimant.  The Claimant must \nprove  entitlement  to  these  benefits  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence.   Preponderance  of  the \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n22 \n \nevidence means the evidence that has greater weight or convincing force.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank \nv. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003). \nThe first issue for determination is whether the Claimant has been rendered permanently \nand  totally  disabled  due  to  her  compensable  right  shoulder  injury  of  September  6,  2022.  Dr \nO’Mally performed right shoulder surgery on January 10, 2023.  Specifically, Dr. O’Malley \nperformed right shoulder arthroscopy rotator cuff repair, among other things, as described above \ndue  to  a  massive  rotator  cuff  tear  being  demonstrated  on  an  MRI.    However,  the  Claimant \ncontinued  with  significant  right  shoulder  pain  despite  surgical  intervention  and  extensive \nconservative treatment.  Subsequently the Claimant came under the care of Dr. Hussey.  On March \n19, 2024, Dr. Hussey performed “1.  Right reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.  2. Right shoulder \nremoval of nonabsorbable deep implant material.”  Following this surgical procedure the Claimant \ndid  well  and  was  very  please  with  the  results.      The  Claimant  underwent  an  FCE  with  reliable \nresults on October 15, 2024.  Per this evaluation the Claimant put forth a reliable effort of 47 of \n48  consistency  measures within  expected  limits,  and  she  was calculated to be capable  of \nperforming MEDIUM duty work, with applicable restrictions.  On October 22, 2022, Dr. Hussey \nplaced  the  medium  duty work restrictions  on  the  Claimant  permanently.    He  also  evaluated  the \nClaimant to be at maximum medical improvement for her right shoulder injury.  Dr. Hussey also \nassessed  the  Claimant  with  a  21 % whole  body  rating permanent  impairment due  to  her injury, \nwhich the Respondents have accepted.  As of the date of the hearing, the Claimant continued to \nreceive payment for the rating.   \n Here, the permanent effects of the Claimant’s work-related shoulder injury would prevent \nher from returning to work as a mental health technician, however, the Claimant has the ability to \nearn wages in other less strenuous employment.  Her testimony proves she is not permanently and \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n23 \n \ntotally disabled.  The Claimant has applied for several positions within her restriction.  She testified \nthat she believes she could return to work as a receptionist provided, she receives training for the \nposition.    I found the Claimant’s testimony to be credible in this regard.  The Claimant’s testimony \nis corroborated  by  the  medical  evidence  (particularly  Dr. Hussey’s expert  opinion  of  her  being \nplaced permanently on medium duty work restrictions), and the Vocational Consultant,  Ms. \nBrunson’s,  identification  of  numerous  jobs  within  the Claimant’s physical limitations  and  prior \nwork experience in the medical profession. Moreover, no doctor has opined that the Claimant is \nincapable of returning to other employment in the medium duty category of work.  Accordingly, \nthe preponderance of the credible evidence before me clearly proves that the Claimant has at least \nthe physical capacity to earn meaningful wages in the medium classification of work.  Hence, there \nis  no credible evidence of  record before  me whatsoever proving  that  the Claimant has  been \nrendered permanently and totally disabled as a result of her compensable right shoulder injury of \nSeptember 6, 2022.   Therefore, based on the evidence before me, I find that the Claimant did not \nprove by a preponderance of the evidence that her compensable shoulder injury of September 6, \n2022, has rendered her permanently and totally disabled.        \nB. Wage-loss Disability        \n When a Claimant has sustained a permanent impairment rating to the body as a whole, the \nCommission is authorized to increase the disability rating based on wage-loss factors.  The wage-\nloss factor is the extent to which a compensable injury has affected the Claimant’s ability to earn \na livelihood.  Grimes v. North Am. Foundry, 316 Ark. 295, 872 S.W.2d 59 (Ark. 1994).  Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-522(b) (Repl. 2012) provides, in pertinent part:  \n(1) In considering claims for permanent partial disability benefits in excess of the \nemployee’s  percentage  of  permanent  physical  impairment,  the  Workers’ \nCompensation Commission may take into account, in addition to the percentage of \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n24 \n \npermanent physical impairment, such factors as the employee’s age, education, \nwork experience, and other matters reasonably expected to affect his or her future \nearning capacity.  \n Such  other  matters  are  motivation,  post  injury  income,  credibility,  demeanor,  and  a \nmultitude  of  other  factors.   Glass  v.  Edens,  233  Ark.  786,  346  S.W.2d  685  (1961); City  of \nFayetteville v. Guess, 10 Ark. App. 313, 663 S.W.2d 946 (1984); Curry v. Franklin Electric, 32 \nArk. App. 168, 798 S.W.2d 130 (1990); Cross v. Crawford County Memorial Hosp., supra. It is \nwell established that a Claimant’s prior work history and education are factors to be considered in \ndetermining  eligibility  for  wage-loss  benefits.   See  Cross  v.  Crawford  County  Memorial  Hosp., \nsupra.; Glass v. Edens, supra.; City of Fayetteville v. Guess, supra.; Curry v. Franklin Electric, \nsupra.  \n In the present matter, the Claimant is 62 years of age.  She graduated from high school in \n1981.  Afte graduating high school, the Claimant attended technical school in Russellville for about \na  year  but  did  not  complete  the  program.   The  Claimant  worked  at  Kimberly  Clark  for  thirteen \nyears.  She worked as a machine operator and back-up line leader.  After having premature twins, \nthe  Claimant  left  the  workforce  for  about  seven  years.    When  the  Claimant  returned  to  the \nworkforce,  she  went  to  work  at  AmTran  as  a  spot  welder  for  about  a  year  and  a  half.    While \nworking there, the Claimant began going to school for the medical assistant program and quit her \nemployment with AmTran.  The Claimant attended Eastern College in Little Rock about twenty \nyears ago where she earned certification in the medical assistant program.  She no longer has this \ncertification.   Other employment includes work at Frigidaire on the assembly line for over a year.  \nShe moved to Tulsa and began working at the Tulsa Center for Behavioral Health.  She worked as \nmental health technician.  The Claimant’s job duties  included  the  basic  care  for  mental  health \npatients.  She performed those duties for seven years.  She moved to Dallas, Texas and went to \nwork for Medical City for approximately two years.  At Medical City, the Claimant worked as a \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n25 \n \npatient representative, doing hospital admissions.  She left there and went to work at Green Oaks \nas  a  mental  health  technician  performing  similar  work  that  she  had  performed  in  Tulsa.    The \nClaimant worked at Green Oaks for twelve years.  She got married and moved back to Conway.  \nShe went to work for Conway Regional in 2018, as a mental health technician.         \n The parties stipulated that the Claimant’s average weekly wage at the time of her injury on \nSeptember 6, 2022, was  $505.80.    At  the  time  of  the  hearing, the  Claimant  was  not working.  \nAlthough she has reached the minimum age for retirement, the Claimant testified that she would \nlike to continue work.  As of the date of the hearing, the Claimant had not applied for Old Age \nRetirement Social Security benefits.  The Claimant has made applications for several jobs, but she \nhas not been offered a position as of the date of the hearing.  \nAs noted above, the Claimant has undergone two surgeries due to her compensable right \nshoulder injury.  The Claimant initially underwent surgery by Dr. O’Malley after an MRI revealed \na  complete  full  thickness tear of  the  supraspinatus  tendon  and  the  infraspinatus  tendon.    Dr. \nO’Malley  described  this  as  a  massive  tear.    Following  this  surgery, the  Claimant  continued  in \nsignificant  pain.   Ultimately,  the  Claimant came under the  care of Dr.  Hussey.    On  March  19, \n2024,  Dr.  Hussey performed  a “1.   Right  reverse  total  shoulder  arthroplasty.   2.  Right  shoulder \nremoval of nonabsorbable deep implant material.”  The Claimant credibly testified that she did \nwell postoperatively.  Her testimony is corroborated by the medical records.    \nThe Claimant’s husband is retired, and they have been able to travel with no problems or \nissues relating to her shoulder.  The Claimant can perform medium category of work.  She received \na 21% impairment rating which the Respondents have accepted and are paying.  Ms. Brunson has \nnamed several jobs that the Claimant can perform within her physical restrictions.  Dr. Hussey has \nopined that the Claimant’s restrictions for the  most  recent  FCE  are  permanent.   Since  her  last \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n26 \n \nshoulder surgery, the Claimant has continued to show interest in returning to the workforce.  Her \nskills  are  primarily  in  the  mental  health  profession,  which  would  potentially  require  her  to  be \ncapable of physically restraining a patient.  However, the Claimant is clearly not physically capable \nof performing this task without posing a safety risk to herself and others.  Given the nature of this \nwork and the safety risks involved, I am persuaded that the Claimant is unable to return to type of \nwork.  Ms. Brunson identified several jobs that the Claimant is potentially capable of performing, \nbut  she  has  not  been  able  to  obtain  employment  from  any  of  her  job  searches.    Ms.  Brunson \nconfirmed that she did not personally interview the Claimant, nor was she asked to provide any \nvocational rehabilitation help for the Claimant.     \nTherefore, considering the Claimant’s advanced age, permanent impairment rating of 21%, \nher medium physical restrictions, limited education, prior work experience, and all other matters \nbefore me, I find that the Claimant sustained a 15 % wage loss disability over and above her 21% \nimpairment rating.    \nC.  Attorney’s Fee \n The  parties  stipulated  that  the  Respondents  have  controverted  this claim for  additional \nbenefits in its entirety.  As such, the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee \non all indemnity benefits awarded herein to the Claimant, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715 \n(Repl. 2012).  \n                           AWARD \n Based  on  the  foregoing  findings  of  facts,  this  claim  for  permanent  and  total  disability \nbenefits is hereby respectfully denied and dismissed in its entirety.  \n However, in the alternative, the Claimant proved she sustained wage loss disability in the \namount of 15% over and above her 21% impairment rating.   \n\nJOHNSON – H300401 \n27 \n \n Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to pay benefits in accordance with the findings \nof fact set forth herein this Opinion.   \n All accrued sums shall be paid in lump sum without a discount, and this award shall earn \ninterest at the legal rate until paid, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-809 (Repl. 2012).  \n  Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715 (Repl. 2012), the Claimant’s attorney is entitled \nto a 25% attorney’s fee on the indemnity benefits awarded herein.   \n This fee is to be paid one-half by the insurance carrier and one-half by the Claimant.   \n      IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n                                                                            ______________________                       \n                         CHANDRA L. BLACK \n                                Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO.: H300401 TINA JOHNSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CONWAY REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, INC., TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 4, 2026 Hearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK, in Little Rock, Pulaski Coun...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:30:32.687Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H300401-2026-03-04","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JOHNSON_TINA_H300401_20260304.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}